The New York Times led the propaganda behind 9/11 and the 9/11 Wars. It did so by ignoring many of the most relevant facts, by promoting false official accounts, and by belittling those who questioned the 9/11 events. The Times eventually offered a weak public apology for its uncritical support of the Bush Administration’s obviously bogus Iraq War justifications. However, it has yet to apologize for its role in selling the official account of 9/11, a story built on just as many falsehoods. Instead, the newspaper continues to propagandize about the attacks while putting down Americans who seek the truth about what happened.

The New York “newspaper of record” has published many articles that promote official explanations for the events of 9/11. These have included support for the Pancake Theory, the diesel fuel theory for WTC 7, claims based on the torture testimony of an alleged top al Qaeda leader, and accounts of NORAD notification and response to the hijackings. Since then, U.S. authorities have said that none of those explanations were true. However, the Times never expressed regret for reporting the misleading information.

Instead, the Times continued to sell every different official explanation. When a new government theory for destruction of the WTC was put forth, it was immediately promoted. The newspaper never reported any critical analysis of the official accounts, despite the fact that all of them, including the final reports for the Twin Towers and WTC 7, have been proven to be wrong.

When the fourth story arose for how the North American air defenses failed, the one that said U.S. military officers had spent three years giving “false testimony,” the Times pushed it as fact. Its article on the subject simply closed the matter with the statement that “someone will still have to explain why the military, with far greater resources and more time for investigation, could not come up with the real story until the 9/11 commission forced it to admit the truth.” The idea that military officers might have started out telling the truth, thereby leaving very sensitive questions to be answered, and that the 9/11 Commission was now being false, apparently never occurred to the editors.

Meanwhile, the newspaper has made considerable efforts to belittle Americans who question the official account of 9/11.

In June 2006, the Times published a snarky account of a grassroots conference of 9/11 investigators. The article focused on sensational descriptions of the participants, including what it called “a long­haired fellow named hummux who, on and off, lived in a cave for 15 years.’’ The fact that Dr. hummux was a PhD physicist who had worked on the Strategic Defense Initiative for 20 years was not mentioned. The Times simply distorted his experience living with a Native American tribe and falsely stated that he had lived in a cave. No mention was made of serious, undisputed facts that were presented at the conference.

A few months later, at the fifth anniversary of 9/11, the Times published another propaganda article in support of the politically timed reports from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). The article began by declaring that those who questioned 9/11 were “an angry minority,” while minimizing a national Scripps Howard poll, published just a month earlier. The poll showed that “More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East.” That is, the number of Americans who thought that federal officials were behind the attacks (36%) was on par with the percentage of Americans who had voted for the president. Yet the Times inferred that it was only a small fraction of the population who questioned 911.

The September 2006 article promoted one Brent Blanchard as a demolition expert, implying that his recent essay refuted any suggestions that the WTC buildings were demolished. As I told the reporter Jim Dwyer, when he interviewed me for the article, “Mr. Blanchard may be a good photographer, but the uninformative bluster that fills the first two and a half pages of this piece, and a good deal throughout the paper, shows that he is not a good writer.” The fact that Blanchard was only a photographer and not a demolition expert was not mentioned by Dwyer, nor was my point-by-point refutation of Blanchard’s limited arguments. Instead, Dwyer purposefully ignored the evidence and ended his article with another quote from Blanchard.

More recently, perhaps in response to another large billboard posted right outside the Times offices, the newspaper has renewed its 9/11 propaganda efforts. In one new article, reporter Mark Leibovich wonders “why is it good to tell the truth but bad to be a ‘Truther’.” Leibovich turns to former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer for support. Of course, the article does not refer to Fleischer’s curious behavior on the morning of 9/11, which stands among the unresolved questions. Instead, Fleischer’s input is that he uses the term “truther” as an epithet (read “truth nigger”), “floating a notion and letting it hang there to absorb sinister connotations.” Leibovich goes on to portray 9/11 questioning as just another form of ridiculous “trutherism” that is “stranger than fiction.“

Leibovich and his colleagues at the Times continue to suggest that they are unaware of the many incredible facts about 9/11 that call out for critical investigation. At this point, however, that level of ignorance is not believable and the Times’ track record shows that it will never take an honest and objective approach to the events of 9/11. As one former Timesreporter stated, the paper’s slogan that it provides all the news ‘fit to print’ really means that it provides all the news that’s fit to serve the powerful. And as long as the needs of the powerful differ from the needs of the people, the truth will be something that is unavailable at the New York Times.

33 Responses to The New York Times’ 9/11 Propaganda

Jon, what you say is most merited, but how could it be done? I have difficulty believing that a sufficiently large demonstration could be formed, but the idea is fitting, for the rotten media should all be forced into non-existance.

Well, people have mobilized for alternative energy in large numbers, involving phasing out the corporate energy giants. Well, why not make the major media a similar focus for large scale demonstrations of disgust? Rally for true alternative media, and support the ones we have that are not afraid to seek truth wherever it leads us. There are some. The corporate media are merchants of deception and dishonest propaganda consistently. Boycott them and their sponsors, but not all at once–too scattered. Make a strategic plan..Paying them attention and credibility is the proverbial “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Make the slogan for demos: “Lie to me once, shame on you; lie to me twice and I don’t call you on it, shame on me.”

OK, Trying to answer this one. Make the issue of corporate media lies, just as the issue of 99% vs 1% has become, common universally understood knowledge. Then boycott the hell out of them AND the media sponsors whose ads proliferate. They say money is speech? Well let’s reduce their funds drastically. Corporate media is to alternative media as corporate fossil fuel is to alternative energy. Time for a big flush! First let us strategize!

Yes, you have the facts on your side, but just look at these names! : MARK LEIBOVICH quoting ARI FLEISHER writing for a rag owned by SALZBERGER in a city where the will of hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers was denied in the HIGH RISE SAFETY INITIATIVE and an allegedly progressive mayor felt the need to say his duty is to go to bat for ISRAEL.

Mr. Ryan, you and your colleagues demolished the bin Laden conspiracy theory years ago already. Anybody with 3 hours on the Internet can see that the towers were demolished. WTC 7 is the dead give away.

I will tell you anecdotally that I lived smack dab in the middle of Manhattan for years during and after 9/11 and I was clueless about WTC 7, that’s how well hidden they kept it. I thought I was well informed by perusing the Times and Democracy Now! Covert Action Bulletin, etc. But no, AMY GOODMAN and NOAM CHOMSKY really let us down.

You cant expect the NeoCon regime and the left controlled opposition, both with so much invested in their 9/11 paradigm but for different reasons, to admit the whole thing is a big con. Not con as in conspiracy, con as in confidence job, a scam.

Keep soldiering on, Mr. Ryan, and my I suggest we bring our evidence to the U.N. and foreign governments, not media outlets owned by the perps themselves.

MR. Bruno : living in Manhattan should give you a leg up or heads up on the LOWER MANHATTAN DEVELOPMENT CORP . Go to Chelsea Piers and confront Roland Betts , and his 2 Yale partners , Betts , Pataki , & Bush were at Yale together . They formed the above Corp. in November of 2001 . Since then the names in this organization ( bigger than any Mafia run operation ) Bernard Kerik , convicted Felon and his boss Rudy G. are still milking this and Rudy’s wife Judith Nathan is running a bogus Charity with the WTC.

I’m not going to give the NYT a free pass but almost all of the media, political class and public avoid the issue also. Building 7 is our own “Tiananmen Square”. Will future generations look back at us on the obviousness of it all and wonder, “What a bunch of marooons, how could they be such dupes?”

DEAR MR. RYAN ; are you aware of the NY TIMES , 911 Report . They followed the 911 Report with six ( sick ) reporters ; and in some cases added propaganda about the hijackers . I don’t remember all the details , ;in one case they said one of the hijackers , could take over at any time , if someone was incapable of finishing the job .
They could fly anywhere they wanted ;they had installed GPS systems . Okay . that is just a few stories .

Thank you , Mike ; but i thought i would leave it for the “Curious ” to look up .
I have enough problems writing , spelling and grammar without having to look up supporting evidence . Can’t do it alone .
Why did the book say ,”they had a GPS they installed “.?
Here’s another one ;who /whom is Todd Zinser , OIG ,DOT( FAA) ? Try he was fired from the Commerce Dept . IG , last week .

It struck me today (in the course of unrelated research) as ironic to find out that NIST is part of the Dept. of Commerce. Though it is a rich, complex irony, it goes along with what you are saying about the NYT “selling” a story (which they quite literally do, every day, on a multitude of subjects). My mind couldn’t help wondering about the appropriateness of NIST as an investigative agency as regards the WTC in the first place. In any case, thank you for your article. Well-done! –Paul

I suppose my main point was that the Department of Commerce seems a strange branch of government for an investigation agency to emerge from in the case of “terrorism”. I couldn’t help wondering whether NIST (part of Commerce Dept.) was the most appropriate choice to play a part in the 9/11 investigation. In other words, was that the best the U.S. could do? To extend the my earlier metaphor, NIST was indeed the best choice if the goal was to “sell” a particular version of events. However, absent that disheartening scenario, it would seem that another agency would have been more appropriate. Unfortunately, all agencies and stakeholder groups closed ranks to squelch dissenting voices. So in the end it is mostly just an observation of irony. Perhaps NIST is our best and brightest, but there integrity is forever sullied for the Walt Disney science they proffered concerning the WTC. –Paul

I haven’t done the historical research to be able to obtain the statistics for myself but read maybe a decade ago that over the 20th century, the Dem. Party is guilty of more crimes of war and/or against humanity than the Repub. Party was. Maybe that’s before Cheney and Rumsfeld entered high US politics, but perhaps it’s even with their “work” in US foreign politics.

If not mistaken about this, then the NYT was considered more of a “leftist” or “liberal” media, as opposed to a “conservative” one. This “left” vs “right” crap is all nonsense though. Evil is evil and is both very “liberal” as well as “conservative” about it. People can liberally as well as conservatively do good or bad things. What’s important is to be fair, honest, etc. FAIR, Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, f.e., is supposed to be just that, fair and accurate, so honest, say.

That of course often requires very careful and honest, unbiased analysis, as well as reporting; not editors who unethically screw up reporting. It takes journalists with enough courage to oppose “standard” interference with their work.

We can expect that doing this requires courage, but it’s supposed to be one of the characteristics of being a journalist and is awfully lacking.

Oh well, many people who’re critics also live in fear, posting criticisms while using pseudonyms. While their criticisms can sometimes be right, such people nonetheless illustrate fear. What do they fear, putting their jobs and “reputations” at risk? Many journalists also fear putting their economic “livelihoods” at risk, though produce articles published with their real names rather than pseudonyms.

Maybe it’s a form of “fuzzy logic” ? One thing for sure, however, is that journalism must be cleaned up. It’d be far better for line-towing journalists to find other employment and then quit their “journalistic” careers, to stop repeating known lies, rather than to continue doing the latter. May they all quit in outrage and make a wide mockery of the chiefs of the msm; plus other media that repeat or else state lies as well as distortions.

Thanks for that short video. The tool definitely seems to work very fast. I doubt that the huge beams at WTC, 1, 2 and 7, were cut in the same way on 9/11, but it’s interesting to see how easily steel can be cut through.

tg, very good video recommendation, and a copy is also found at ae911truth at YouTube. Dr Hulsey, of structural or civil engineering, with many years of experience teaching and also working on his own, definitely strikes me as being honest/sincere, and surely very competent as well as unbiased. He isn’t aiming to prove “inside job” or any other such conclusion and is, instead, just wanting to do a critically objective analysis of the destruction of WTC 7. Excellent, from what I can see so far.

Excellent presentation. It isn’t yet complete, but it’s off to or on an excellent start. We just have to hope that Dr Hulsey and his team can get ahold of whatever they’re lacking and need. I’d like to do a Rah, rah,rah little fit and say that if the study team doesn’t get what they need, then us “cowboys” and gals will get the materials the study team lacks and then provide it to these experts; but, that’s dreams for children. Of course rah, rah, etc, isn’t going to get this team of experts what they need.

So, pray Dr Hulsey et al get all they need in order to completely do their study.

He says it very clearly that his team doesn’t yet have everything needed for doing a fully thorough evaluation, but maybe he and his PhD assistants will still be able to get over 90% of the evaluation work completed. Maybe none of the extra information would alter the conclusionsl maybe it’d all re-affirm the same findings. But, it’s clear that he’s going to be conducting a very “exacting” study, so he needs the extra pieces of information. Whether they re-inforce evaluation he’s already arrived at or they lead him to very different conclusions doesn’t matter, in a sense, for he’s doing an open minded study, not one with a pre-set conclusion. He clearly wants to be thorough and honest.

For us 9/11 “truthers”, not that I ever told a lie about it, athough have kept one part secret since posting about it at cbc.ca in late Fall 2002 and early 2003, receiving gracious thanks and threats, well, Not even the crooks in the govt know what I know, but of what I know, I couldn’t specify which individuals are guilty. However, there’s a man who’s been working most dedicatedly for many years to try to nail down the top suspects. His name is Kevin Ryan and this happens to be his blog.

I know something he and no one else knows. According to one guy I know in a nearby town, someone else had also described part of what I saw, but the guy wouldn’t tell me who this other person was and I was left with no further information. I know what I saw though and it was much more thorough. It was not good news. You’d want to run and prepare for war, War we got. Wars! Wars of bullshit from Washington!

I was just by a riverside talking to God about the injustices in this world and oh, oh. As per above.

Some people graciously thanked me for the explanation, and that was welcome friendliness. Some other people threated to kill me. Ha. First, they have to find me. It’s funny when people, on the Internet and who don’t know you, want to threaten you. I just suggest that they give it a try. They have to find you, first, and the town I live in already has plenty of nuts or nutcases. You don’t want to be in this damn town unless you’re here and don’t have any way of paying to get out of here and you therefore are in a sort of prison far worse than the asylum for the following film.

Hi Kevin,
I consider you to be the top investigator on 9/11, I am curious about that. I know you were a scientist working at UL, how did you become so proficient at research and writing? I also am a writer/researcher, but, like you, can find no outlet because the MSM and a lot of alternative media, is corrupt propaganda.
I defer the expert analysis to you, Gage, Jones, et al, however, I was fascinated and curious as to how the conspirators sold this lie to the public. My 13 years of research, debating on message boards, and now blogging have resulted in a book, Youtopia: Exploding the Myths and Exposing the Elites Who Are Ruining Paradise on Earth for All of Us. I hope you will check it out, please read at least the introduction to the book, you can read that much and more for free.
I want to improve my website and wanted to include guest contributors, when I thought about that your name popped to mind. I also want to get a couple more, perhaps Ellen Brown, as banksters rule at the top.
I am 60 now, I’ve been working very physically hard all my life, my hip is bad, may need to be replaced. I am a land surveyor and have learned to trust mathematics, I have to, it’s my job. I think I would be an asset in the truth and understanding movement, I think we, you, I, and more, need to collaborate, much as the msn has an echo chamber of streaming lies. I am looking, not from you, for some book sales, and or sponsorship so I don’t have to continue destroying my hip and I can write and research and I have some good ideas for marketing 9/11 truth as you will see if you read my book. Here it is, enjoy, please respond to lee@youtopia.guru my site is http://youtopia.guru/

Please check it out and if you like, please send to everyone on your bulk e-mail list. Thank you very much, and, btw, I bought Another Nineteen quite a while ago and mention it in my book.

My connection between the Commerce Dept and the FAA ; Todd Zinser was the IG at Commerce ;he was fired 2 weeks ago ? He was the OIG @ FAA (DOT) that cleared the FAA of the six charges against them ( also DOD ) in August of 2004 ;This coincided with the conclusion of the Commission ; but it would serve their purpose anyway .Their “conscious ” was/ were clear .Legally and other wise . I say NO. Because the argument within the staff began in June , 2004 .
I am in the process of mailing all the arguments and decisions to Webster Tarpley . I cannot handle such complex work . I can read ,but i can’t write , or type fast enough .

You are not alone. Tens of thousands of people write everyday about their pain and frustrations with the New York Times. Yet, those press soldiers at the New York Times are laughing their rears off. They get even more attention by disrupting the lives of as many people as possible. War and aggression is profitable for journalists. It’s not rocket science. They can do whatever they want: demonize any government, promote any war, distort any truth, fabricate any dissident, and destroy anyone’s reputation. Here’s how they promote violent riots in Hong Kong. Imagine German media or Russian media would openly promote violent riots in New York or Washington D.C. Hell would break lose. Just saying. http://www.east-west-dichotomy.com/why-the-ny-times-promotes-violence-in-hong-kong/

The Twin Towers had 116 levels counting the basements. With 100,000 tons of steel in each building does anyone believe every level had the same amount of steel? So how do experts spend 15 years not discussing the distributions of steel and concrete in relation to the collapse time?